Thanissaro Bhikkhu on Papanca

[Dmytro]

Hi Ground,

This description (not meant as "definition") appears adequate:
papanca is initiated by contact (phassa) and its meaning includes everything arising from that in the sphere of being mentally affirmed. So in this context actually "papanca" simply means "add on".

Papanca arises later, after "sanna" (recognition):

http://dhamma.ru/lib/paticcas.htm

[ground]

Hi Ground,

This description (not meant as "definition") appears adequate:
papanca is initiated by contact (phassa) and its meaning includes everything arising from that in the sphere of being mentally affirmed. So in this context actually "papanca" simply means "add on".

Papanca arises later, after "sanna" (recognition):

http://dhamma.ru/lib/paticcas.htm

Maybe according to Theravada exegesis, yes ...

"There are these four nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search of a place to be born. Which four? ... contact as the second... These are the four nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search of a place to be born.
...
"Where there is passion, delight, & craving for the nutriment of contact, consciousness lands there and increases. Where consciousness lands and increases, there is the alighting of name-&-form. Where there is the alighting of name-&-form, there is the growth of fabrications. Where there is the growth of fabrications, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging, & death, together, I tell you, with sorrow, affliction, & despair.
...
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

"Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[tiltbillings]

Hi Ground,

This description (not meant as "definition") appears adequate:
papanca is initiated by contact (phassa) and its meaning includes everything arising from that in the sphere of being mentally affirmed. So in this context actually "papanca" simply means "add on".

Papanca arises later, after "sanna" (recognition):

http://dhamma.ru/lib/paticcas.htm

Maybe according to Theravada exegesis, yes ...

According to the suttas, plain and simple.

[ground]

Hi Ground,

This description (not meant as "definition") appears adequate:
papanca is initiated by contact (phassa) and its meaning includes everything arising from that in the sphere of being mentally affirmed. So in this context actually "papanca" simply means "add on".

Papanca arises later, after "sanna" (recognition):

http://dhamma.ru/lib/paticcas.htm

Maybe according to Theravada exegesis, yes ...

According to the suttas, plain and simple.

Yes, the suttas supporting what has been stated have been quoted. If what has been stated and supported by sutta quotes deviates from Theravada exegesis then it be so.

[tiltbillings]

Yes, the suttas supporting what has been stated have been quoted. If what has been stated and supported by sutta quotes deviates from Theravada exegesis then it be so.

Which term in the quotation you gave is papanca?

[ground]

Yes, the suttas supporting what has been stated have been quoted. If what has been stated and supported by sutta quotes deviates from Theravada exegesis then it be so.

Which term in the quotation you gave is papanca?

There is no need for this term to appear in the quotes, because the description given for the meaning of papanca has been supported by the quotes. No term definition has been given, but a description which you may understand as a suggestion that you can ignore or reject or accept or be inspired by. No claim has ever been made that the description given IS the Theravada exegesis. Of course it is not.

[tiltbillings]

Yes, the suttas supporting what has been stated have been quoted. If what has been stated and supported by sutta quotes deviates from Theravada exegesis then it be so.

Which term in the quotation you gave is papanca?

There is no need for this term to appear in the quotes, because the description given for the meaning of papanca has been supported by the quotes. No term definition has been given, but a description which you may understand as a suggestion that you can ignore or reject or accept or be inspired by. No claim has ever been made that the descrition given IS the Theravada exegesis.

In other words, Dmytro is correct, and you are not.

[ground]

Yes, the suttas supporting what has been stated have been quoted. If what has been stated and supported by sutta quotes deviates from Theravada exegesis then it be so.

Which term in the quotation you gave is papanca?

There is no need for this term to appear in the quotes, because the description given for the meaning of papanca has been supported by the quotes. No term definition has been given, but a description which you may understand as a suggestion that you can ignore or reject or accept or be inspired by. No claim has ever been made that the descrition given IS the Theravada exegesis.

In other words, Dmytro is correct, and you are not.

"I" is neither buddhist nor theravadin, the same may hold true for "you". So what is correct and what is wrong?

[tiltbillings]

"I" is neither buddhist nor theravadin, the same may hold true for "you". So what is correct and what is wrong?

What is correct is what Dmytro said, as can be seen direrctly in the suttas, and what is wrong is "you."

[ground]

"I" is neither buddhist nor theravadin, the same may hold true for "you". So what is correct and what is wrong?

What is correct is what Dmytro said, as can be seen direrctly in the suttas, and what is wrong is "you."

As stated earlier what Dmytro said may be compliant with Theravada exegesis.

[tiltbillings]

"I" is neither buddhist nor theravadin, the same may hold true for "you". So what is correct and what is wrong?

What is correct is what Dmytro said, as can be seen direrctly in the suttas, and what is wrong is "you."

As stated earlier what Dmytro said may be compliant with Theravada exegesis.

Dmytro: Papanca arises later, after "sanna" (recognition). It is compliant with the suttas:

MN 18: "Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives [saññā] (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies [papañca]. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[ground]

"I" is neither buddhist nor theravadin, the same may hold true for "you". So what is correct and what is wrong?

What is correct is what Dmytro said, as can be seen direrctly in the suttas, and what is wrong is "you."

As stated earlier what Dmytro said may be compliant with Theravada exegesis.

Dmytro: Papanca arises later, after "sanna" (recognition). It is compliant with the suttas:

MN 18: "Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives [saññā] (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies [papañca]. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

if - and only if - "labels in the mind" can be separated from "thinking" and separated from "objectifies" and if further "feeling" can be separated from "labels in the mind" and "thinking" and "objectifies" Dmytro may be compliant with Theravada exegesis but not be compliant with the 2nd of the suttas quoted above:

"There are these four nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search of a place to be born. Which four? ... contact as the second... These are the four nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search of a place to be born.
...
"Where there is passion, delight, & craving for the nutriment of contact, consciousness lands there and increases. Where consciousness lands and increases, there is the alighting of name-&-form. Where there is the alighting of name-&-form, there is the growth of fabrications. Where there is the growth of fabrications, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging, & death, together, I tell you, with sorrow, affliction, & despair.
...
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

"Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[tiltbillings]

if - and only if - "labels in the mind" can be separated from "thinking" and separated from "objectifies" and if further "feeling" can be separated from "labels in the mind" and "thinking" and "objectifies" Dmytro may be compliant with Theravada exegesis but not be compliant with the 2nd of the suttas quoted above:

In other words, you know naught of what you speak. The suttas you quoted do not support your position. What it looks like is that you really do not have a clue as to what papañca means and how it used in the suttas. Also, the "if - and only if" sentence shows you do not really know how the suttas talk about these things. I can suggest some reading for you to do so that you can get up to speed on these things rather than simply flailing about. It would make for a far better discussion.

[ground]

if - and only if - "labels in the mind" can be separated from "thinking" and separated from "objectifies" and if further "feeling" can be separated from "labels in the mind" and "thinking" and "objectifies" Dmytro may be compliant with Theravada exegesis but not be compliant with the 2nd of the suttas quoted above:

In other words, you know naught of what you speak.

What is spoken of is expression of knowledge by means of terms and terminology. But the words are not the knowledge and the ideas arising upon reading thse words are not the knowledge. There is no knowledge about what is seen in the sphere of "other aggregates" however because this sphere is not accessible.

The suttas you quoted do not support your position. What it looks like is that you really do not have a clue as to what papañca means and how it used in the suttas. Also, the "if - and only if" sentence shows you do not really know how the suttas talk about these things. I can suggest some reading for you to do so that you can get up to speed on these things rather than simply flailing about. It would make for a far better discussion.

There is no intention to discuss about in the sense of "is it this or is it that" because this way of approach is seen as faulty and as cultivation of exactly what is here described as "papanca". But the words aroused by own expression (by means of words) are - sometimes, not always - inspiring in that they help to better understand what is termed "Theravada" by some.

[tiltbillings]

. . .

In other words, for all your verbage trying to say otherwise, Dmytro got it right.

[ground]

. . .

In other words, for all your verbage trying to say otherwise, Dmytro got it right.

Well actually - with reference to suttas that cause a variety of interpretations by a variety of commentators and translators - there is no agreement exactly because there is no difference that may be delineated in that what appears "separated" qua different terms only (see quote from MN 43).

[tiltbillings]

. . .

In other words Dmytro is correct, but you have an alternate understanding.